Dreamcoaster

UKIP Selects Shonk!

According to Thanet Extra
Trevor Shonk has been chosen to be the UKIP (UK Independence Party) candidate for the next general election.
Mr Shonk, 59, lives in Ramsgate and works as a self-employed delivery driver. He says that his knowledge of the area and of the people will stand him in good stead for the election.Mr Shonk said: "I have lived in Ramsgate all my life and I think that we haven't got enough local people in politics in Thanet. I remember when it was quite different here. People would go shopping to Cliftonville as much as they would Canterbury. Everything was there. There was also plenty for families to do in Thanet compared to now."
Over the years many of the buildings have deteriorated and the towns have not been looked after. We have great buildings, like Albion House in Ramsgate that Thanet council has let fall into disrepair. Now they want to sell it, but it is not theirs to sell. It is the property of the people of Thanet."What people want is a community. Westwood Cross has become our town centre but it has had a devastating effect on Margate and Ramsgate.
Margate especially has been devastated by Westwood Cross. I campaigned against Westwood Cross being built as there was no need for it. The area where Westwood Cross is used to be trees. We don't have many trees left in Thanet and we need to protect the environment of the isle. The China Gateway is going to take more of the landscape of Thanet - we need open fields not humongous buildings."
Mr Shonk said that he sometimes misses out on local political meetings as he works until the evenings, but is none-the-less confident running against the Labour and Tory candidates.
He said: "I have no worry campaigning against Stephen Ladyman and Laura Sandys. We need a local voice for local issues. If you are local and your heart is in Thanet people will vote for you."

KCC backs down over free bus passes

Disabled and elderly people should soon be able to use their bus passes from 9am after Kent County Council stepped in to provide extra money for services run by local councils.
This follows pressure from the Labour Group and others for Kent to follow Medway Council's lead.
The introduction this year of a national scheme to provide free travel on all buses for those over 60 and the disabled saw Kent County Council preventing passes being used before 9.30am as a way of cutting costs.
That has provoked complaints from many bus users, particularly in rural areas where services may be limited.
KCC, which co-ordinates the concessionary scheme involving all district councils and Medway council, has decided to use extra money from its own underspend to allow services to run from 9am.
The earlier start time is expected to come into effect from the end of June, with the help of an extra £120,000 coming from KCC.
Making the pass valid from 9am will make a big difference. It will mean over 60s and disabled passengers will be able to go to hospital or doctor's appointments earlier when they are most needed, and travel into town to shop at a more convenient time."
An estimated 260,000 pass holders in Kent stand to benefit from the earlier start time.
Medway council decided in February to revert to a 9am start but all other kent councils have continued to operate concessionary services from 9.30am.

Not Again!

Having put the 10p tax situation to right we find that we could see the tax on ordinary family cars - vehicle excise duty - rising by 32 per cent as part of the Government's so-called anti-climate change measures.
The graduated higher vehicle excise duty (VED) for gas-guzzling 'Chelsea tractors' that emit more than 186g of carbon dioxide per kilometre was applauded when it was first announced as a far-sighted measure to protect the planet. However, Chancellor Alistair Darling has quietly and dramatically changed the proposal by removing an exemption for cars registered between 2001 and 2006.
VED on a Ford Mondeo estate, will go up by 32 per cent between 2007-08 and 2010-11. VED on a Renault Espace, a largish family car, will increase by 43 per cent.

Once again this will hit some of the less well-off who depend on older cars and is unfair because it is retrospective. I'm all in favour of green taxes that change people's behaviour but this is just a punitive tax on action that some people took seven years ago."

Gazette Reports Annual Council Meeting

EZEKIEL TO LEAD FOR SIXTH TERM
08:00 - 16 May 2008
Margate's council chamber erupted in a bitter war of words on Thursday night as rival groups slugged it out over who would lead of Thanet council. The Labour group strongly opposed the re-election of current leader Sandy Ezekiel, who was recently found guilty of breaching the authority's code of conduct. He swore at a fellow councillor over a year ago during a retirement party for the then mayor of Margate Doug Clark, but was found guilty of breaking the code only last month.
Labour councillor David Green claimed that Cllr Ezekiel had "brought the office of leader into disrepute" and put forward the leader of the Labour group, Cllr Richard Nicholson for the post instead. He called on the Conservative group to "put support of public standards above tribal loyalty" and elect a leader who would be able to attend functions "without assaulting the representative of one of our major towns". Newly re-elected council chairman Conservative John Kirby tried to prevent any reference to the enquiry, arguing the episode was more than a year old. He was challenged strongly by councillors who pointed out that the report had only been published this month.Cllr Kirby repeatedly shouted at Cllr Green to sit down and be quiet, saying: "I will not take debate about the standards committee."

Heated argument followed as outraged Labour members accused the chairman of curtailing legitimate discussion.Iris Johnston who, along with the rest of the Labour group had not supported Cllr Kirby's re-election as chairman, accused him of bias. She said: "That's why I couldn't vote for you as you are not fair in your chairmanship of this chamber."Cllr Clive Hart said he was "disgusted" by the outburst, but that Cllr Ezekiel had "already displayed signs of volatile and aggressive behaviour" on other occasions.Stopped by the chairman from recounting any details, Cllr Hart said: "We might as well pack up and go home."

Cllr Ezekiel's Conservative colleagues defended him. Cabinet head of finance Cllr Martin Wise accepted that Cllr Ezekiel "sometimes says things he shouldn't" and that his attitudes are "interesting", but that he was hardworking and popular and that he had "forgiven him for the mistake he made".

Cllr Ezekiel was eventually re-elected for his sixth year as leader by the Conservatives who hold a majority on the council.Describing his re-election as an "honour and a privilege", he repeated his previous apology for breaching the code. Cllr Kirby said: "As chairman of the council I pride myself on being totally impartial. I tried to give a fair commitment to the debate but I would not allow that to degenerate into another meeting of the standards committee."

Council Press Office Oversight?

Thanet Council’s new Cabinet, Chairman and Committee Chairmen for the forthcoming year has been formally announced.

The Council Press release is below. They unfortunately forgot to mention that the shadow cabinet are also Council appointments nominated by the largest opposition group, Labour

They are:

Shadow Leader Cllr Richard Nicholson

Shadow Deputy Cllr Clive Hart

Commericial and Environmental Services Cllr John Watkins

Safer Neighbourhoods, Health and Safety Cllr Michelle Fenner

Housing Cllr Iris Johnston

Finance, Improvement and Customer Services Cllr David Green

Last night’s (Thursday 8 May) Annual Council meeting saw Cllr. Sandy Ezekiel re-elected as the Leader of the Council for the sixth year.

Cllr. Roger Latchford was re-elected as the Deputy Leader for the second year and will continue his work as the Cabinet portfolio holder for Economy and Culture, which covers areas such as planning, the Port of Ramsgate, Ramsgate Royal Harbour Marina, tourism and culture and events.

The remainder of the Cabinet for the Council year 2008/09 is:
Cllr. Shirley Tomlinson
Commercial and Environmental Services (including street cleaning, waste and recycling, grounds maintenance, beaches, environmental enforcement)
Cllr. Jo Gideon
Safer Neighbourhoods, Health and Communities (community safety, leisure services, sport)
Cllr. Zita Wiltshire
Housing (including council housing, homelessness, Renewal Area and private sector housing)
Cllr. Martin Wise
Finance, Improvement and Customer Services

The Council’s Chairman will be Cllr. John Kirby, who begins his second year in the role, with Cllr. Margaret Sheldrick remaining as Vice-Chairman of the Council.

The Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the Council’s Committees and Boards for 2008/09 were also appointed at the Annual Council meeting.

Planning Committe Chairman Cllr. Ken Gregory
Planning Committee Vice-Chairman Cllr. Simon Day
Scrutiny Chairman Cllr. Bob Bayford
Scrutiny Vice-Chairman Cllr. Mike Harrison
Licensing Board Chairman Cllr. Margaret Sheldrick
Licensing Board Vice-Chairman Cllr. Mick Tomlinson
Governance and Audit Committee Chairman Cllr. Jill Kirby
Governance and Audit Committee Vice-Chairman Cllr. William Peppiatt
Joint Transportation Board Chairman Cllr. Michael Roberts

Save Thanet's Water

Further to the points made about Thanets water supply, KM Extra reports that DOZENS of Manston residents turned out last week to voice their fears over the proposed China Gateway Project and the impact it could have on their way of life.
Families from Bell Davies Drive, Beamont Close, Alland Grange Lane and Manston Road - areas which border the earmarked area - launched their campaign last week to fight the scheme which, they say, would see unsightly warehouse buildings on the doorsteps of their homes, blocking their views and shutting out daylight. They fear heavy vehicles would be going to and from the park day and night, making the area unsafe for their children.
Around 60 people, including many children symbolically waving bottles of water, gathered on a green overlooking the land intended for the first two stages of a three phase development which would, in all, take up about 75 acres.
The ground on which the China Gateway Project would stand is a major part of the chalk aquifer which supplies water to thousands of households and businesses across Thanet. The chalk acts as a natural holding area for the water which is moved on by the Sparrow Castle pumping station further along Manston Road.
The Environment Agency is insisting a number of conditions be met before planning permission is granted to protect the water supply from any accidental leak or spillage of industrial waste into the ground. The sewers from the park should be connected to the mains drainage system and not through a cheaper septic tank style system, which had been proposed by CGP’s developers. If the conditions are not met, the agency says it will strongly object to Thanet Council granting permission.
Thanet Council announced last week it was allowing more time for objections to the scheme and has extended the deadline until the end of June. Letters can be sent to Doug Brown, Planning Officer, Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent CT9 1XZ.

What a Darling!

Looks as though the Government has done more or less what I hoped for and raised the tax threashold.

The Chancellor is today announcing that at a cost of £2.7 billion, he will increase the personal tax allowance by £600 to £6035 for this financial year, benefiting all basic rate taxpayers under 65.

This will mean that 22 million people on low and middle incomes will gain an additional £120 this year to offset their average loss due to the phasing out of the 10p tax band. The tax liability of everyone that currently pays tax at 40 per cent will be unaffected by the increase in the personal allowance

It will also mean that 4.2 million households out of the 5.3 million households will receive as much – or more than – they originally lost, with the remaining 1.1 million households seeing their loss at least halved. 80 per cent of households are fully compensated with the remaining 20 per cent compensated by at least half. And in addition 600,000 people on low incomes will be taken out of tax altogether.

People aged between 60 and 64, whose average loss was £100 will also get the advantage of the increased personal allowance worth up to £120. They also receive the additional £50 Winter Fuel Payment for this year, which was announced in the Budget.

The increased personal allowance will apply to all income for this tax year and so will be backdated to 6 April. For future years the Government’s aim is to continue the same level of support for those on lower incomes. The Chancellor will bring forward proposals to do this at the Pre-Budget Report.

This measure represents the fairest and most effective way to help all those affected as a result of the changes proposed last year. In addition, this family tax cut provides support this year for those on middle incomes at a time where they face increased bills, so supporting the economy.

Key facts

From September basic rate taxpayers will see a one-off increase in their monthly income of £60 and then an increase of £10 per month for the rest of the financial year.

The tax liability of everyone that currently pays tax at 40 per cent will be unaffected by the increase in the personal allowance. As the £600 increased personal allowance applies not just to basic rate taxpayers but also to those paying tax at a higher rate, the Government will reduce the threshold at which an individual starts to pay tax at the higher rate by £600.

· Those brought into the higher rate will still gain by up to £120 this year.

· The Government is able to finance this proposal through borrowing. It is sensible to allow borrowing to rise and investment to be maintained as the economy slows. Debt is lower than in the past and low by international standards. Our fiscal policy, like our monetary policy, is designed to support stability in these uncertain economic times generated by the turbulence in the financial markets and global commodity price inflation.

Raising allowances is simpler than other solutions. The Government considered the administrative practicalities of other options that were suggested, including a one-off rebate or compensatory payment as well as changes to the tax credit system to allow the average losses to be offset. However, we found that a rebate scheme would be complex and expensive to administer. It would also take time to set up and changes to the eligibility for tax credits could not be introduced this year.

Safeguarding Thanet's Water Supply

Water companies have a duty to produce plans that detail how they should manage water supplies to ensure customers have clean, fresh drinking water on demand. These plans for the first time are being put out for public consultation so everyone can have their say on how these resources are developed. See the www.southernwater.co.uk site.
In many respects, the proposals are highly technical. However as well as reducing loss through leakage, there are three relatively simple proposals that Southern Water have for Thanet's water supply.
The first and perhaps most controversial is to introduce compulsory metering by 2015
The second is to source extra ground water supplies.
The third is to improve their ability to share water with other regions.
Further into the future there are plans to increase the capacity of Bewl reservoir.

Waste Water Reclamation?
Future pressure on our water supplies immediately brings into question the wisdom of pumping Margate and Broadstairs waste to Wetherlees and then back again, after treatment, to discharge to the sea at North Foreland. Surely extra investment to make it re-useable should be considered?

Thanet's potable (drinkable) water is blend of water from Plucks gutter (river Stour). Lord of the Manor Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 1 and from the Wingham Well. It's all then held at the Southern Water works near the Airport. The Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 2 lies within Kent International Airport.

The plan to source extra ground water supplies obviously pre-supposes that our existing supplies are secure. A number of recent developments are raising doubts,

Discharges from Manston Airport- Obviously a major spill of aviation fuel into the water-table would have serious consequences. The Airport is currently negotiating discharge consents by pipe to Pegwell Bay with the Environment Agency. Public consultation should begin soon.

Thanet Earth - the 91-hectare site located between Birchington and St Nicholas at Wade. The site, now officially named Thanet Earth, will include seven glasshouses, each covering the area of around 10 football pitches. Expected water consumption is 493,968 m³ per year. Rainfall collected from the roof surfaces comes to 290,700 m³ per year. Allowing for 20% evaporation and other losses, this leaves a shortfall of 261,408 m³. 61,000 m³ will be obtained from underground sources, the remainder by abstraction from nearby marshes.

China Gateway - the warehousing and assembly proposal for Manston business park. Part of the site is on top of the Manston aquifer, the environmental report (part of the planning application) says that the surface drainage system will discharge into a large soakaway in the porous chalk, and says that foul drainage chemical, industrial and human sewage will be processed by an onsite plant and that the purified water from this plant will be discharged into the surface drainage system.

Who is responsible for safeguarding the public interest? The planning authority is Thanet Council. They will take advice from Southern Water, the Environment Agency and English Nature.

In the case of the China Gateway development, the Environment Agency has the following comments regarding the redevelopment of land at the above location.

The site lies on the upper chalk formation; this is classified as a major aquifer. The site lies in Source Protection Zones (SPZ) 1, 2 and 3 for the Sparrows Castle public water supply. This site therefore lies in a vulnerable location in terms of groundwater protection and all precautions should be taken to prevent accidental spillages and discharges to ground during and after construction.
Foul Drainage:
All foul drainage should be directed to mains foul sewer.
An on site package treatment plant discharging to ground will not be acceptable at this site. The Agency's Groundwater and Contaminated Land team will object to any application made under the Water Resources Act 1991 for consent to discharge.
The volume of treated sewage effluent would be so large it would pose an unacceptable risk to the groundwater in the underlying aquifer and therefore to the public water supply abstraction.
The site lies in a nitrate vulnerable zone; these are designated areas where agricultural nitrate pollution of surface and ground waters is known to be high or rising.
The Environment Agency has been working hard to tighten up on farmer's use of nitrates in an attempt to reduce the amount of nitrates entering the ground and therefore the groundwater. A discharge of this volume of treated sewage effluent will only increase the nitrate loading in this area.
Surface Water Drainage:
Condition:
No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters.
Reason:
To prevent pollution of water environment.
The Agency's Groundwater and Contaminated Land team have no objection in principle to the use of infiltration systems at this site, however the following restrictions will apply:
Contaminated Land:
Drainage to ground is not acceptable at this site until results are submitted that prove that there is no contamination in the areas proposed for drainage. Drainage plans should be cross-referenced with the outcome of the contaminated land investigation.
Landfill:
There should be no discharge into waste material (landfills) which have been identified on site. Soakaways constructed into landfill sites will allow water to enter the waste and produce leachate, this can then produce gases and the soakaway may act as a preferential pathway to the surface. Any leachate produced may also migrate to the groundwater in the underlying aquifer, as the site lies in such close proximity to the public water supply abstraction point, this is unacceptable.
Pollution Prevention:
It is stated in the drainage strategy that pollution prevention methods (interceptors) are to be used to prevent hydrocarbons draining to ground from roads, hardstandings and car parks.
It is important to recognise that petrol interceptors require regular maintenance. Routine inspections should be undertaken at least every six months and a log maintained of inspection date, depth of oil and any cleaning that is undertaken. Sufficient access points should be provided to allow for inspection and cleaning of all internal chambers.
The correct handling, storage and disposal of interceptor waste is vital if pollution is to be avoided. Under the Duty of Care (Waste Management), the waste producer has a duty to ensure that the waste contractor who removes the waste is registered with the Agency.
Clean uncontaminated roof water shall drain directly to soakaways entering after any pollution prevention methods.
Industrial/Commercial use of site:
Any activities producing potentially polluting run off should be sited on impermeable hardstanding areas that drain to foul sewer.
Concrete slabs should be joined together in such a manner as to not leave any paths for potential contamination to drain through. All hardstandings should be regularly maintained and cracks sealed at the earliest opportunity.
Any locations where waste is to be stored (including in skips, containers, etc) or sorted should be sited on an impermeable, hardstanding area that drains to foul sewer.
SPZ 1:
The drainage strategy states that there is to be no infiltration to ground in SPZ 1. The Groundwater and Contaminated Land agree with this statement, and all surface water drainage should be diverted out of SPZ 1 or discharge to foul sewer.
Contamination:
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control states that:
'In considering individual planning applications, the potential for contamination to be present must be considered in relation to the existing use and circumstances of the land, the proposed new use and the possibility of encountering contamination during development. The LPA should satisfy itself that the potential for contamination and any risks arising are properly assessed and that the development incorporates any necessary remediation and subsequent management measures to deal with unacceptable risks, including those covered by Part IIA of the EPA 1990.'
Due to the previous uses of the site, we consider that planning permission should only be granted to the proposed development as submitted if the following planning condition is imposed as set out below. Without this condition, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and we would be obliged to object to the application.
Condition:
Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:
1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:
· all previous uses
· potential contaminants associated with those uses
· a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors
· potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
3. The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
Condition:
Prior to commencement of development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority.
Condition:
Reports on monitoring, maintenance and any contingency action carried out in accordance with a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be submitted to the local planning authority as set out in that plan. On completion of the monitoring programme a final report demonstrating that all long- term site remediation criteria have been met and documenting the decision to cease monitoring shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reasons:
To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of the environment and harm to human health.
The relevant planning condition should not be discharged until such time as all relevant works are complete and a closure report submitted and approved by the LPA. Any construction on site should not commence until this approval has been granted
Chapter 9 - Soil Conditions and Contamination:
The Agency's Groundwater and Contaminated Land team have the following comments on chapter 9 of the EIA.
Table 7.2 does not identify all the risks posed to the groundwater in the underlying aquifer. Only made ground is identified as posing a risk to the groundwater. Landfill sites, fuel tanks, adjacent industries and aircraft parking are all potential sources which can pose a risk to the groundwater; this risk should be identified and assessed in the ground investigation report.
The Environment Agency recommends that developers should:
1) Follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, when dealing with land affected by contamination.
2) Refer to the Environment Agency Guidance on Requirements for Land Contamination Reports for the type of information that we require in order to assess risks to controlled waters from the site. The Local Authority can advise on risk to other receptors, e.g. human health.
3) Refer to our website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk for more information.
All exploratory holes should be sited in the most appropriate locations to provide good coverage of the site and allow for investigation of potentially contaminated areas identified in the desk study. I.e. an exploratory hole should be located in the vicinity of any fuel tanks identified on site.
Removal of material:
Contaminated soil that is excavated, recovered or disposed of, is controlled waste. Therefore, its handling, transport, treatment and disposal is subject to waste management legislation, which includes:
i.) Duty of Care Regulations 1991
ii.) Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005
iii.) Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (as amended)
iv.) Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (England and Wales) 2000
v.) Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002
Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically, and that the permitting status of any proposed off site operations is clear. If in doubt, the Environment Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays.
Foundations and Piling:
With respect to any proposals for piling through made ground, we would refer you to the EA guidance document "Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention".
The method of piling foundations for the development shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme to be approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to any development commencing.
It is important that the scheme prevents the formation of potential pathways for the migration of contamination from the site to the underlying groundwater environment.
Fuel, Oil and Chemical Storage:
Care should be taken during and after construction to ensure that all fuels, oils and any other potentially contaminating materials should be stored (for example in bunded areas secured from public access) so as to prevent accidental/unauthorised discharge to ground. The areas for storage should not drain to any surface water system.
Where it is proposed to store more than 200 litres (45 gallon drum = 205litres) of any type of oil on site it must be stored in accordance with the Control of Pollution (oil storage) (England) Regulations 2001. Drums and barrels can be kept in drip trays if the drip tray is capable of retaining 25% of the total capacity of all oil stored.

Con 49% Lab 23% LD 17%

Appalling news for Labour
In what is perhaps the most sensational opinion poll for decades the pollster that got the London Mayoral election spot on, YouGov is tonight reporting a 26% lead for the Conservatives.
The shares are CON 49%: LAB 23%: LD 17%
Is it true? Well yes, I think as a snapshot of peoples opinion I think it probably is. Coupled with the loss of 350 councillors and the London Mayor, things are prety bad at the moment.

Is it recoverable? Yes, most definitely, because the fundamentals of the economy and the big domestic issues are still good.

There is a sense of betrayal over the 10% tax fiasco that needs to be put right, I have advocated a large rise in personal allowances as one solution. However, its not just that, we need to ditch unpopular "non core" issues and concentrate on the priorities of the electorate that has given us 3 terms in Government.

Labour Candidates for Margate

Labour has selected its candidates for Margate and Cliftonville who will fight the next county council elections next May. Party members voted unanimously to select current county councillor Clive Hart and district councillor Iris Johnston as their candidates.The pair have worked together as district councillors for many years and will represent Margate Central, Cliftonville West, Cliftonville East, Dane Valley and Salmestone if elected when the elections take place in 2009.

Water Water Everywhere?

Is compulsary water metering on its way to Thanet?

For many years water companies have produced plans that detail how they should manage water supplies to ensure customers have clean, fresh drinking water on demand. These plans for the first time are being put out for public consultation so everyone can have their say on how these resources are developed.

In many respects, the proposals are highly technical. However as well as reducing loss through leakage, there are three relatively simple proposals for Thanet's water supply future
The first is to introduce compulsary metering by 2015
The second is to source extra ground water supplies.
The third is to improve the ability to share water with other regions.
Further into the future there are plans toincrease the capacity of Bewl reservoir.

You can download the documents below to review them. Inside the main report are consultation questions and a form you can fill out to send to Defra with your comments. Or click here to fill out an online form that will be sent direct to The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
• Download the main report for the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
• Download the non-technical summary of the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
• Download appendices A - C of the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
• Download appendices D - F of the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
• Download appendices G - I of the Draft Water Resources Management Plan
Also available to download is the non-technical summary of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). This report is an independent review of our Draft Water Resources Management Plan by WSAtkins.
Comments on the SEA should be sent to Adams Hendry consulting limited as outlined in the SEA report.
• Download the non-technical summary of the SEA

Cliff Terrace - Dissent at Thanet Council

The Margate Architecture Blogsite has published the following comment on the "restoration" of Cliff Terrace in Margate. I find this a revealing insite into the management of Thanet Council's Planning department and the weight that is given to preserving what is good and quality in our built environment. I ask myself, who benefits from this blatent disregard of the need to preserve the best of our heritage? It can only be the profit margins of the developer concerned.

Cliff Terrace - TDC blowing their own trumpet

The latest edition of Margate Newsletter from Margate Renewal hails the work going on at Cliff Terrace to be an "Eyesore Finally to be Transformed".
"Work is finally underway to transform a beautiful group of empty buildings in Cliftonville, after intervention from Thanet District Council."Quite. Yes, the buildings are now going to be transformed to be 100% residential flats, which has meant the loss of the original shops and shopfronts on the groundfloor level. This was contrary to the advice of a conservation officer at TDC.
So Cliftonville will add a few more flats to it's already bulging roster. Let's also remind TDC that they did not apply for 14 and 15 Cliff Terrace (the end ornate building) to be listed or protected. That was down to a local resident. TDC threatened a Compulsory Purchase Order and then found a developer to turn the whole site into residential. In so doing there has been the loss of original shops and shopfronts and the creation of flats that sit directly at street level on a busy corner. Now, aren't these exactly the type of housing units that are difficult to shift in this area?There was no need for the building to have fallen into such a state of disrepair had TDC acted earlier. The creation of more flats, as residents of Cliftonville will know very well, does not always bring a better environment.So, why did TDC need to push through the plan for 14 and 15 Cliff Terrace to be converted to residential? The listed building status gave them enough clout to limit residential flats to the upper floors.

Here's the officer's formal complaint:

Brian White – Head of Development Services
Thanet District Council
Cecil StreetMargateKentCT9 1XZ21st December 2007

Dear Mr. White,
L/TH/07/1527 – 14-15 Cliff Terrace, Margate
FORMAL COMPLAINT

The above building was listed on 15th October 2007.
This necessitated the submission of a listed building consent following the previous granting of planning consent for the conversion of the building in to flats.
The building is a purpose built shop with a tearoom and letting rooms over. The list description notes the remains of the historic shopfront.In common with the planning application, the listed building consent application proposed alterations to the ground floor to facilitate a domestic conversion. Whilst such an alteration might be acceptable in a building that was not listed, it departed from the original form of the building in a manner that would be detrimental to its historic character. Any alteration to this building should serve to re-enforce that character – as stated in policy HE1 of the Thanet Local plan.

I gave my advice on this application to the case officer by e-mail on 7th December. Upon discussion, the case officer told me that she did not intend to follow this advice. When questioned as to why this might be the case, she responded that she was the planning officer.I am employed by both this Authority and English Heritage to advise on matters concerning the historic built environment, especially listed buildings. I am a chartered Architect and a full member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation.In a situation such as this, one affecting the character of a listed building, my advice should be the paramount consideration in the determination of the application. There is no point in employing me if my opinion, on matters that I am uniquely qualified to opine, is ignored.On the face of it, it would appear that the decision to grant this consent was the unilateral decision of the planning officer. This being the case I wish to bring a formal complaint against the case officer for professional misconduct.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Dermott IHBC RIBA

Cliff Terrace c1970, thanks to Tony Ovendon

Ezekiel Unrepentant!

So says the headline in this weeks Kent on Sunday.

Despite admiting his disgraceful conduct towards the Mayor of Margate, Cllr Ezekiel, leader of the Tory Group on Thanet Council refuses to apologise to Cllr Clark.

I may be old fashioned, but as Cllr Clark was wearing the Margate Civic chains of office at the time, the insult was to the Town of Margate, and Ezekiel should find a suitable public occasion to apologise to the Town. He may find this easier than apologising directly to Doug Clark.

This disgraceful conduct was subsequently reported to the Standards Board for England.

I have mixed views about this. Ezekiel was obviously tired and emotional at the time, after a long day at a Civic function. To be asked to take part in Auld Lang Syne was obviously too much for him.

Where I condemn Ezekiel's actions followed afterwards. On learning of the complaint against him, Ezekiel then made a complaint to Kent Police, making allegations that were clearly intended to mitigate his own culpability. These were fully investigated and found to have no foundation.

The second part of the attempted damage limitation exercise, concerned claims of months of racial harassment, based on a shorthand entry in the Mayor's diary and a query regarding the Council Leader's religion prior to a Civic service. Items that had occured months before, without comment at the time.

The claim that Cllr. Doug Clark, a senior East Kent Magistrates Court Chairman and a JP of 27 years standing is in any way racist is ludicrous. Aside from the fact that his former wife is herself of the Jewish faith, Councillor Clark has for many years provided accommodation in his house for hundreds of students from every corner of the globe. This pillar of the community, who spent last Christmas day in Cliftonville, cooking dinner for the homeless, has now had his good name besmirched on the front page of a newspaper.

Anti social behaviour coupled with hypocrisy was then followed by allegations to the police, wasting hours of their time.

Ezekiel retreat into Bunker

Thursdays TDC Cabinet meeting discussed the Audit Commission's report on TDC Housing services. As the service only got a "Fair" rating one would have thought the Tories would have welcomed a thorough discussion of the report.

Not so Cllr Ezekiel!

At last night’s Cabinet meeting, Councillor Michelle Fenner, Shadow Cabinet member for Housing, was prevented from finishing the comments she had prepared on the Housing Inspector’s report.
What she had to say was obviously hitting home and Councillor Ezekiel couldn’t bear to listen to it all.
Councillor Michelle Fenner tried to make the point that The Inspector’s report commented that “TDC’s plans do not always have clear, consistent and stretching targets in place”.

Councillor Fenner stood up at Full council in December 07 and said just that but, at the time, her comments were dismissed. According to a Tory Councillor “it is better not to have stretching targets so that you can be sure to achieve them”. (!!!) At Cabinet last night, Councillor Fenner intended to point out that the action plan produced as a response to then Inspector’s report needed to be more stringent.
Councillor Fenner also expressed concerns that complaints from TDC tenants did not always appear to be taken seriously nor acted upon. A recent example of this was the fact that a council tenant had to wait 2 weeks and the strong intervention from his Local Councillor to the Acting Chief executive to have his toilet mended which had been condemned by the contractors.

On the issue of affordable housing, Councillor Fenner pointed out the Inspector’s comments that not enough affordable housing is being built because of TDC’s slowness in negotiating Section 106 agreements with the developers.

These are all important points that ought to be debated in a democratic fashion and members of the council ought to have the right to express freely their views.

With his reputation at low ebb over the f**king w**ker affair The Leader of TDC should show a bit of humility and not try and suppress voices of concern.

321 words